Ubuntu vs Arch Linux

Video is ready, Click Here to View ×

Comparing Ubuntu to Arch Linux. Focus is entirely on the underlying system, as Arch don’t offer a specific interface to compare with Ubuntu’s Unity desktop.

2:59 Ease of Installation
4:00 Help
4:46 Packaging
7:52 Resource Usage
8:51 Kernel Choice
10:17 Package Updates
12:08 Conclusion

Please donate and help support my work:



  1. The two distros respective forums also reflect what +Quidsup succeeded in summarizing here. To do so in just minutes is for me proof he really knows what he's talking about. A useful detail's missing though: Package management on Arch is about 3 to 5 times faster than Ubuntu's, whether on a rotational or SSD drive. Being also more resource efficient makes Arch updates a breeze even on (then) not so shitty 2nd generation monocore Atom (or other low-pro) machine 🙂
    Fu*ing nice job you achieved here Quidsup, really! Please go on.

  2. On my system any buntus or mint and the like, take like almost a full minute to boot. in some cases more. On the same rig with pure Arch, it goes from button to login in 9 seconds. Then from login to desktop in 1 1/2.

  3. Right you lot, everyone who commented on Super Transform, would you all take a break..So let's start we're all using Linux or a free and open source OS so that is good. So let's start Ubuntu is not better than Debian is no better than Arch is no better than Gentoo is no better than Slack and LFS is not a OS to be honest it's more like an idea and yes after 4 bloody attempts I installed it I will never do it again END OFF. I would ask all of you using Linux or BSD or whatever to just collaborate together. Say how good your system is but stop dishing others. We in the free environment are the only lot that do this, fighting amongst ourselves. So say what's great about your distro but don't bad mouth other people and be helpful you never know one more Windows or Mac user may just move over to a free and open system..HAVE WE ALL NOW GOT THIS..good

  4. I like ubuntu…I'm also South African…another useless bit of information is that the word Ubuntu actually apears in English textbooks here along with a slightly older version of the ubuntu logo…The word ubuntu actually has a meaning behind it which I cannot recall atm

  5. this kind of sound make a new variant of cancer.. change your microphone…!!!!!
    btw keep up the good work and i agree, ubuntu or its variant is the best distro for linux newbie.
    mint is my first linux os, then i go to ubuntu, vector, fedora, etc and finally arch since 2 years ago.

  6. For new users with no doubt Ubuntu/Debian distros are the best choices, but for Intermediate+ users, Arch without a doubt. I began using Linux bcause of Ubuntu (and it will always be special to me because of it), but after I switched to Arch, my system is running better than it ever did. The ability to choose what to put is unbelievable. I use Arch with Gnome and the stability of my system surprises me. And the best of all: AUR -> how good it is. Ubuntu may have the same/more but nothing beats the AUR. This review is extremely good, I just wish I could show the difference it made in my system, but as you said, it depends on the system!!! /* The best of all is to see how great and amazing is Linux. I am seeing more and more people joining this amazing community with a shared pleasure for the system */

  7. When I first started using Linux as my daily I started on Mint. That lasted about six months. Made the jump to Arch and never looked back. I went in as a novice, essentially. But I had been a power user on windows for a couple decades before that. So, the idea of having to do research and learn things was not lost on me. The Arch install is not exactly simple, but not even close to as hard as it's made out to be. Especially with the guide. I actually made my own guide that I keep for future installs. It's a mix of the Wiki guide, some other guides I read, and my own discoveries from doing it. And, if all of that is too much, you can always use Manjaro, Architect, or Antergos. All more simple ways of getting things done if you are not cool with DIY in the terminal.

  8. Having zero experience with Linux at this point, I can't see myself getting into any of the so-called user-friendly distros anytime soon. They're packaged with a lot of software preinstalled, which on any other OS most people would be quick (and arguably right) to call bloatware.

    Linux-based operating systems are often touted as teaching you how computer hard- and software works, but by preinstalling everything a user needs, this can no longer hold true, as it obviates the need to know anything and go about most generic tasks, but forces the user to dig through all those layers to get to the basics.

    Another thing, and this goes for Linux in general, is how it's said to give you the freedom to do anything, and yet the entire concept of repositories goes against this in the extreme. There's a good reason Apple has their app-store and that's because they can control everything on your system. The main argument in favor that I've heard so far is to safeguard against virusses.
    If Linux is REALLY about teaching the inner workings and how to be clever about using your computer, protecting people against themselves cannot possibly be the way to go.

    Having said that, I can see myself working with and around some of Linux's inherent peculiarities, some of which I likely won't be convinced are good things no matter how hard you try, because obviously Windows isn't perfect either and my concerns about it are steadily growing. What I cannot see myself doing is jumping into a ready-made distro and be exptected to make sense of the huge spaghetti of things that are already going on.

    I would have to build up the system step by step, like legos. Learning about each brick how it works, where it is different and similar to Windows and for what reason, and which particular color of brick would best be suited for my usage style.

    It's really not realistic from what I've seen to expect to use Linux "as if it were Windows", in the sense that you install it and only ever use the GUI to get things done. You'll have to get into the console at some point. If that's the case, you might as well start learning that at the installer and get to grips with it, since it will serve as the foundation of anything you do, just as it is the foundation of any Linux-based OS itself. I would like to get that out of the way before I start layering all kinds of distractions on top of it.

    Now, if you're an experienced Linux user and think I've made an error in some of my assumptions (which as a currently still Windows user I fully expect to have done), feel free to point it out to me, but as it stands, the idea of getting into it with Arch somehow appeals to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.